Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Acland (died 1553)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

John Acland (died 1553)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails basic notability; only claim to fame is being the apparent subject of a single (also non-notable) portrait. Sneftel (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  09:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and the article's own words: "Little if anything is known of his life and career". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - he had a portrait made, and his estate is not now a national landmark, indicating that he was important back then. Once a person is notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. House and portrait is owned by the National Trust (which means that they attach some notability). He is getting listed in historical books for Devon (although not nationally as far as I can see). Could be a redirect case to Acland, Landkey also. A well constructed and sourced article so willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Britishfinance (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He has no connection to the house. Killerton was purchased by a later John Acland (died 1620). And I don't see how simply being the subject of a painting (unless it's the Mona Lisa) confers notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP is packed with BLPs (and BPs) that meet GNG but will be deleted over the coming years. Historians will not chronicle them in even a hundred years time; despite meeting many of our policies, they are inherently non-notable in the long-term.  This subject, almost 500 years later, is still being recorded.  Maybe the policy is WP:PRESERVE or WP:NOTPAPER, but this is a well constructed article which does no disservice to WP or its subject (there is no PROMO/COI here). There are far (far far) more serious cases for AfD then this one. Britishfinance (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:GNG. Notable work.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.